Big Buy-in Tournament Poker

[Vincent Lepore]

Every professional poker player has poker skills that he uses to win at poker. I started this paragraph with this "duh" statement because I have encountered people on this forum that claim there is such a thing as a "losing" professional poker player. I prefer not to get into that discussion again so I hope that it is clear I am speaking of "winning" profesionals.

Most everyone here knows what skills a professional poker player should excel at to play poker optimally. Mason Malmuth has educated the public and poker insiders for years on what needs to be mastered to be a competent professional poker player. But these are not the skills I want to discuss. If you are curious or need a refresher on just want to know what they are pick up Mason's Poker Essays II. That book just might be the best book a pro poker player can buy. This is not an advertisment, just a fact...O.K an opinion.

So just to be clear, I believe that to be a successful Tournament Poker Professional, one with a +EV, one needs to be a proficient Poker Player. I do not believe that one needs to be an expert poker player, just competent. By competent I mean someone who has the skill and understanding to beat low limit poker.

Tournaments are not poker. Again, my opinion and not really important for this discussion. Let's just say that tournaments are different from Live Cash game Poker.

Maybe we should discuss the diferences. But that's already been done. Sklansky touches on the differences in his Tournament Poker book. I believe Dan Harrington addresses them also.

No, what I want to discuss is tournament Skills. The most important tournament skill, in my opinion, is Survival. This might be another "duh" statement but it needed to be said anyway. I believe that you just cannot play +EV Tournament Poker unless you fully understand and are able to effectively employ Survival Skill(s). If you ain't there at the end you can't win!

So what are the elements of survival that one needs to understand. I'll start the list:

1) Avoidance
2) Accumulation
3) Timing

There are other factors but before I go on past my point on Avoidance below I want to see if others here find this topic worthwhile and are interested in discussing it. Besides I'm tired of typing.

As for 1) Avoidance: Avoidance is knowing the why and when of situations to avoid. I am not referring to the "Gap" concept although there is certainly a connection. Understanding the Gap concept is not enough though. Understanding the potential for disaster or catastrophe and avoiding these situations might be the best way to look at this. It includes knowing at what point to gamble. Avoidance is something that I came up with. I have not seen anyone else use this term. They may say the same thing in a different way but this is how I look at it and term this element of survival.

O.K. that's enough for now. If there is interest I'll continue. If not that's fine too. I've enjoyed doing this and have found out a little about how I feel about Tournament Poker. That's a win to me.

Vince

[MLG]

if boy avoidence you mean passing up gambles where you have only a small edge early in a tournament i disagree that this is a good aspect for a player to have.

if on the other hand you mean having the forethought to not place yourself in a situation where you will be forced to call off all your chips with only a small edge, well that I agree is a very important skill to have.

[Moovyz]

Good topic for discussion.

One thing you didn't get to in your post Vince, that I think is the MOST important aspect of a tourny professional, is Adaptation. ie: the ability to adapt to the changing players/situations quickly.

In live poker, every winning player has to be able to adapt to the game when he first sits in. If there's a bunch of maniacs, if they're all rocks, a new players sits in, etc.
But in live this is usually spread out over a number of hours. Often the dynamics of a game don't change that much over a long period of time.

In tournaments, players get knocked out, a new one sits, tables break, levels increase, stack sizes change dramatically, etc. This usually happens repeatedly throughout the event, culminating in a general chaotic final table assembly, that then smooths out a bit.

IMO, a sucessful tourney player has to be far more adept at adapting to the changes that occur far more quickly, and more dramatically than a session of live.

[Bigdaddydvo]

Nice post Vince.

Doyle waxes eloquently about "Avoidance" in tournaments without actually using the phrase. He cites two examples, one where he threw KK away facing a raise and a reraise since he was among the chip leaders and his stack was deep enough relative to the blinds to make it through at least the next two days. The other was Phil Hellmuth folding a KdJd when he flopped a straight flush draw since he felt he could put himself in higher +EV positions later on.

Average players (myself in that group) aren't good enough to make these laydowns and MUST push small edges. We are estatic to get all their chips in the pot as even a 3:2 favorite.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
if boy avoidence you mean passing up gambles where you have only a small edge early in a tournament i disagree that this is a good aspect for a player to have.

if on the other hand you mean having the forethought to not place yourself in a situation where you will be forced to call off all your chips with only a small edge, well that I agree is a very important skill to have.

[/ QUOTE ]

As for the first part, I don't see how you cannot agree that this is valuable. Early in a tournament, against opponents against whom you have a clear edge, why push small advantages for significant chunks of your stack?

As for the second part, this is huge. I would call it Compromise, as opposed to Avoidance, but I suppose the sentiment is the same.

I see people disregard this concern all the time. They put some chips into the middle, get raised, and then look perplexed as they realize they have priced themselves in for their entire tournament if they are raised. This applies whether they have an edge or not; the point is simply that they neglected to consider what would happen if they were raised at all, it seems.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
Average players (myself in that group) aren't good enough to make these laydowns and MUST push small edges.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if it's because we aren't good enough to make the laydowns. A previous poster uses the term "forethought". I like that term along with awareness and understanding. But maybe the most important term is "Self Control". We "average" players and I'm speaking for myself, sometimes have the tendency to prematurely explode. We know the right play but for some reason we panic or are not strong enough to make it. I'm hoping that through discussions like this that my "avoidance" will improve. A key concept that needs to be discussed is "risk versus reward". I believe that by burning the risk versus reward elements of a situation into ones head might help but it just might be a charcter flaw, at least with me that makes me go against what I think is correct.

Vince

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
Early in a tournament, against opponents against whom you have a clear edge, why push small advantages for significant chunks of your stack?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've discussed both sides of this arguement. One side thinks it's important to mix it up as much as possible with bad players early in a tournament. the reason is that they won't be around later on. Others and Harrington and Sklansky I believe profess a conservative approach early on in tournaments. The main issue is risking a significant portion of your chips early on in a toss up or small advantage situation. Knowing me I am sure that I would pass on these small edge situations. But as the other poster indicates this might be wrong. How does one resolve this issue?

Vince

[Moovyz]

I've been playing, watching and dealing tournament holdem for years. The 2 schools of thought are 1. play fast and loose early, build chips for later. 2. play tight, survive the early rounds.

I think both work but in different ways. The ones who play loose, build bigger stacks that get them into the money, but not as often, as they get knocked out earlier when the strategy backfires. The ones who play tight get deeper into more tournaments but seldom have the big stack necessary to finish high.

While the first group doesn't get there as often, they usually cash higher, offsetting the more frequent early exits.

Examples: Group 1: Harrington, sometimes Helmuth, Lederrer
Group 2: Hansen, Scotty, Raymer

My personal preference is group 2 style of play. I'd rather get knocked out more often early (get to the ring games...lol) but when I don't get knocked out, I'm one of the chipleaders throughout. This gives you the freedom to stay clear of many harder decisions in the middle and attack the short stacks that further build my stack.

[Vincent Lepore]

It appears that there is agrreement among us that this thing I refer to as Avoidance is a "skill" that needs at least to be considered and might be very important to a tournament Professional.

Another aspect of Tournament Poker is Accumulation. Note that this is not the same thing as winning chips in live cash game poker. I don't think anyone looks at winning in cash poker as accumulating chips, at least not consciously.

In big-buy in Tournaments such as the WSOP ME one cannot make the money without playing or in effect accumulating chips. Bottom line is that you must play or you will be blinded off unless of course you are that one lucky person that wins his blinds when he needs to.

I believe that one's goal at the beginning of a tournament should be to wint he tournament. That's where the focus should be. Of course with winning as one's goal one might be more inclined to push small edges atr every opportunity. I don't play that way but I'm considering it. with the goal of winning it is understood that you have to win all of the chips to win the tournament. you can't do that in the early rounds or on one hand. You must "accumulate" chips. Those of you that play tournaments understand that it difficult to schedule your chip accumulation. That is you would like to win enough chips at each level to keep you at some constant (or better) ratio of chips to blinds. You cannot keep your ratio of chips to blinds at the same or better if you move to another limit unless you win at the current level. This is one place where Avoidance vs Accumulation conflict. This is where tournament skill truly first comes into play. The closer you get to the next limit the more pressure there is to accumulate chips to cover that limit. I believe that one must control the urge to survive when coming close to a blind increase unless other factors also come into play. Specifically being close to the money. The last two rounds before a limit increase should be accumulation rounds. One should considerably loosen up their playing requirements to accumulate enough chips to give them the ratio of chips to blinds they need to play comfortably at the next limit. Once they have the target chips they can then resume their normal play. This type of play should continue until one is close to the money.

What is the minimum desireable chip to blind ratio? I've heard things from 10 times the combined blinds to 10 times the big blind. I like the former with a pinch of salt. I want enough chips to where limping in will not significantly affect my ratio of chips to blinds. Consequently, I bellieve that one might be better off beginning to accumulate chips early in a tournament rather than waiting (playing conservatively) until the pressure of the ratio begins to influence play.

Vince

[Moovyz]

The ideal stack size in a particular level of a tournament is also affected by two other factors:

First, you mentioned limping. If the players at the table are generally raising every pot, you'd need a slightly bigger stack relative to the blinds than if the table is more passive.

Second, and more importantly, the length of time at each level. You need far more chips relative to the blinds if the levels are short, say 20-25 minute rounds. If they are 45 minutes, you can get by with less.

The 10 times "rule" that you mentioned is in several publications. I've also read that you want to double up during each level (which coincides with the blinds doubling in most cases).

I agree with you. I'd rather try to amass a larger stack earlier than simply survive. When you're just surviving you run into many of those "panic" hands that have to be played because your stack is small in relation to the upcoming blinds.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather try to amass a larger stack earlier than simply survive

[/ QUOTE ]

This arguement is what keeps Tournaments interesting. In my mind it's like Sklansky against Negreanu or conservativism against aggressiveness. What spikes the interest is that the two schools think their way is best. Undecided's like me would like to see some stats. I think that from who we've seen win over the past few years an arguement can be made for both styles.

Vince

[Fallen Hero]

Considering how big the fields are right now, I think it's going to be harder and harder for players to remain conservative and follow what was called here "old school" line of thought and remain successfull at tournament poker.

BTW: There's a big difference here between Hansen and Negreanu and the way they play tournaments, Hansen is far more math-oriented then basically any other player.

PS: Out of poor coincidence I was just reading an article by Daniel Negreanu where he talks about his tournament strategy, it seems relevant to our discussion so here it goes:" In the early stages, I’m more than willing to take some extra chances, looking to bust some of the “dead money.” After all, on day one, you generally see more dead money than they do on day three, and I try to target those players if I can. If I don’t get that money, somebody else will.

Most books will tell you that day one is all about survival — that you should play conservatively and avoid taking any risks. Personally, I think that by approaching tournaments this way, you aren’t taking advantage of enough equitable opportunities."

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
In the early stages, I’m more than willing to take some extra chances, looking to bust some of the “dead money.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very logical approach. The idea is to play against weak opponents that are likely to get themselves into situations that cost themsleves a lot of chips or their whole bankroll. In the late stages of a tournament you usually find yourself against strong players. Players that are less likely to easily give up large amounts of chips. That's not to say that the conservative apperoach isn't effective. Does Dan Harrington strike a bell? I'm more inclined to believe that the wielder of the strategy, his personna, should be the driving factor behind the strategy employed. There is no question that Negreanu is a competent poker player. Same for Harrington. I don't believe either could effectively employ the others strategy because of their individual personality and beliefs. That does not mean that either does not know how to change gears, they do. But I beelieve that they would be hard pressed to always employ the others strategy. It would be like "Rocky" fighting right handed.

Vince